To say it is a $180 tourist fee is rather inaccurate. This payment covers accommodation, transport within Bhutan, food, non alcoholic drinks and the hire of a guide - pretty much everything that most tourists would need during a day in Bhutan. The $180 also covers the tourist fee, which stands at a rather more modest $65 per day.
Yeah, it covers everything except for drinks, snacks and shopping. It is a good way for the government to promote sustainable tourism and they don't have a lot of other industries so it ensures that the money goes to the right places. It also helps the government keep track of who enters the country and ensures that they maintain the image of the country.
Actually Indians, Bangladeshis and Maldivians can go to Bhutan without the fee and afaik Indians don't even need a passport and you can legit just walk past the gate in the border town Phuentsholing.
Hmm... Hard to say exactly. $65 is the sustainable development fee but there are surely other fees as well. In any case, it looks like the minimum is now $200/day so I updated it.
I think it would be a good idea to mention it includes accommodation etc. That gives an entirely different picture! I didn't know that, or that there was a fee to begin with, but it is 2 completely different scenarios.
Glad wanderingwalrus mentioned it. I guess some good does come from those walrusses wandering ;)
$200 is the minimum per person. For a family of 4, that's $800/day in a poor country where wages are extremely low. And that's the minimum. From my experience, all-inclusive packages are almost never all inclusive. All told, traveling to Bhutan is going to be prohibitively expensive for middle class tourists. But if Bhutan only wants rich people to visit them that is certainly their right.
On the other hand if you want to visit Bhutan as a middle-class person you can. I once almost booked a trip that was 3 weeks for around 4000 euros. That is quite ok, I'd say.
@quizmaster - in the case of all-inclusive, it actually is for Bhutan. The rates compare favourably with what it would cost to do a similar tour in countries such as Nepal and India. One reason they have the daily rate is that the population is small, so they don't want to be overrun by tourists who don't put much into the economy the way that Nepal was in the 1970s.
Can't blame them. In a poor country that hasn't been as successful at industrializing as some of its neighbors, tourism is probably one of the best ways to earn revenue. The cost doesn't seem worth it to me personally, but there are probably tons of rich people who would be willing to pay the price to see what I've heard is one of the most beautiful countries in the world.
Plus children don't pay it, so unless it's a family of 4 adults it wouldn't be $800 per day! Try arranging a trip to Nepal for a family of 4 and you'll find it's about the same. A bit disingenuous.
To preserve their culture from the "western world" and avoid modernization as much as possible from tourists. But, the money goes towards education for children in the country.
According to wikipedia "Strictly speaking, it is the diplomatic delegation itself that is the embassy, while the office space and the diplomatic work done is called the chancery."
I hate tobacco and I hate smelling the smoke and getting potentially carcegenous material into my lungs, and I hate that my health insurance payments are used to pay for the cancer treatments of those smoking idiots, but I find it highly questionable that states simply ban things when they do not approve of them. In my opinion smokers should be alloud to smoke in their homes, they don't harm anyone but themselves there. As long as they have to pay their cancer treatment themselves, through higher health insurance payments due to their increased risk of getting chronical diseases, I don't want to intrude into other people's lives and stop them from doing what they like to do. They only have one life, and if they want to spend it smoking that's their choice and not mine. We love imposing our ideals onto everyone, especially when we are "right", but shouldn't we be more considerate and let people live their lives as they see fit?
We love to think we're helping them, doing it for their own good, but what if their goal in life isn't turning ninety? They might just want to enjoy life, and smoking might be a part of that for them.
Disagree. Protecting the citizens is the duty of the state and society . Smoking not only leads to deadly diseases , but being addictive, takes a financial toll on the person and the family as well. This problem is magnified among the poor people.
I don't think that soft drug consumption should be a thing the state gets to control inside your own home. The state has to live with some of the harm caused by human stupidity. It can't just prohibit everything through which someone causes himself harm.
a) They won't ruin the environment as much as they have less luxurious demands than other travelers.
b) They wouldn't be able to afford the $180 thing per day unlike western countries.
Glad wanderingwalrus mentioned it. I guess some good does come from those walrusses wandering ;)
*free accomodation, with a minumum of 3 stars
*all meals free
*unlimited transport free of charge
*free licensed guide
*free use of camping equipment and haulage for trekking tours
*including tourist royalty and all internal taxes and charges
It sounds totally different appealing instead of appalling (not that I thought that, but the words fit so
nicely :)).
My last vacantion abroad we didn't travel around much because it got crazy expensive, and a
hassle, not knowing what special day month week passes you need etc. So to be able to travel
around without worry sounds pretty good.
a) You probably live within india/bangladesh/etc. in which case you wouldn't have to pay for it
b) If you happen to be not in these countries and aren't middle class, than you probably would have trouble affording the flight there anyway.
c) Just get bangladeshi dual citizenship if its that important. It isn't that hard to get dual citizenship in bangladesh.